Case 1: (A virtual Team at T.

A Stearns) Answer 1) On the basis of the events explained the mentioned case it can be inferred that this group is team and also it can be figured out the kind of bonding and co ordination all the four members share, they are able to generate positive synergies and thus increasing the productivity and quality. As mentioned in the case, the situation when any of the group members is facing some problem and group is to meet the deadline for the project, then every member try helping out with the work and also share the workload. There is positive synergy among the group members allowing them to create high performance with quality.

Also the group members are so dedicated and concerned towards work that they dont find it unusual to set away from the guest or family to check on the work.

The bonding and the same kind of thinking is visible amongst the members, as the four often met formally and informally.

It can also be observed that the every members is concerned about every other member of the group, this can be observed, when Tom and Cy decided not to disclose the Macros innovation to the management, as they feared that there could a possibility that one of the team members could loose the job.

Further as well when the team was entering into a busy season innovation of the Macros was shared among the team members, so that each is able to maintain a balance between the work and family /personal life.

Therefore on the basis of the above mentioned factors that this group of Stern accounting company is team, as they a dedicated to the work and also concerned about the each other.

Answer2)

After going through the case it can be made out that no one has acted unethically. Also it can easily be observed with the instances mentioned below:

Tom and Cy decide not to share/disclose the innovation about the macros to the management, as they realized that innovation would help the team members increase the output and save lot of time. Also they found that their group might suffer and feared that any one of the group members could loose the job.

Both Tom and Cy shared the macros innovation with the team members as they knew that the team in entering into a busy season and realized that this would help the members save lot of time and hence everyone in the team would be able to maintain a balance between the work and personal life.

Dow the in-house manager of the team, picked up the innovation and decided not to discuss it with the management and seniors, as he could see that both the quality and productivity were up and never wanted to disturb the positive synergy of the that the group members shared.

Hence the being unethical does not come into the picture as whatever happened was in favor of the team and everyone is

concerned about the team and in the ends its for the good of organization.

Answer 3)

Group think is something in which the for the consensus overrides the realistic appraisal of alternative course of action, if the characteristics of group think are manifested of the work team the behavior on the performance of the work team may depend on the situation and the kind of work team.

Considering the mentioned case if the group think is manifested in the team, the members of the team may hold a positive image and would be more inclined towards protecting the group and keep the bonding together. Also the group manager Dow is concerned about the team and decides not to share innovation with the seniors.

So Group think is not a dissenter suppression mechanism as much as its up to the group to protect itself and save its positive image, attitude.

Answer 4)

Dow has been a very effective team player, he being the manager of the in-house work team, when he picked up the macros innovation decided not to disclose it, rather keep it to himself, as he see the positive synergy among the four members and also could see the productivity and quality of the work going up.

Further Dow could see the strengthening bong among the

team members and hence Dow left behind his own selfish and individual interests in favor of the team.

Dow took the right decision of not discussing the innovation with the management, as could see that this team would help the organization to grow and also never wanted to disturb the gelling the team members shared with each other, hence the decision taken by Dow is completely justified and is in favor of organization and team in long term times to come.

Case 2: (Differing Perception at Clarkston Industries)

Answer 1)

Some of the events in the mentioned case which influence the

perception process about jack are mentioned below:

Jacks manger Bill gave him another chance, as he perceived jack to be a changed person, also bill himself been through the same kind of situation in his past life, so he related Jack situation with his own past experiences. Bills perception about Jack may be put as one of the shortcut methods of perception (i.e. Projection method).

Also when several employees came to know about the jacks background and past experience, at that point there was a consensus that every person might behave the same way as Jack did.

Perception that its Jack who stole the wallet and money from the petty cash may be termed as purely circumstantial, as all employees perceived that may have done it, due to his background.

Further the explanations given by Jack were not justifying enough, as he did not speak much about the petty cash situation.

Answer 2)

As mentioned in the case the situation that Bill is into and being the manager Bill should fire Jack. Mentioned below are some the reasons for it:

As it was Jacks second chance, as Bill thought Jack would be a changed person.

 Also after seeing the situation if Bill decides to give Jack another chance the other employees would loose trust on Bill as well.

Since Bill is the manager of the group its Bills responsibility to bind the group together and maintain the positive synergies among the group.

If Bill keeps Jack people may question his own Background as he sort has the same background.

Bill understood that the evidence against Jack was purely circumstantial, but still since the consensus about the jack was same, leaves Bill with no other option but to fire jack, in order to maintain the group cohesiveness and in favor of the organization.